Thieleman v. White et al

Filing 104

ORDER ADOPTING 75 Report and Recommendations. Order denying 63 & 66 Motions for Preliminary Injunction filed by Roger Merritt Thieleman. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 8/20/2019. (bmf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ROGER MERRITT THIELEMAN, #1153979

§

VS.

§

JONI WHITE, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv1300

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Roger Merritt Thieleman, an inmate formerly confined at the Michael Unit within
the Texas Department of Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil
rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging purported violations of his constitutional
rights. The complaint was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge, the Honorable Judge K.
Nicole Mitchell, for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition
of the case.
In February 2019, Judge Mitchell issued a Report, (Dkt. #75), recommending that
Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction, (Dkt. ## 63, 66), be denied. A copy of this Report
was sent to both parties; return receipt requested. The docket reflects that Plaintiff received a copy
of the Report in April 2019, (Dkt. #84). However, to date, no objections to the Report have been
filed.
Because no objections to Judge Mitchell’s Report have been filed, Plaintiff is barred from
de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and,
except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United
Services Auto. Ass’n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
1

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243
(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is
“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #75), is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the court. Further, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction, (Dkt. ##63, 66), are
DENIED.

So Ordered and Signed
Aug 20, 2019

2